It’s difficult to articulate but something as pure symbol of status as Mercedes is actually low status. Tesla, which is also an environmentalist symbol, is high status. This is an example of a pattern.
I would argue that Tesla is losing ground as a high status symbol, at least in the Bay Area. They certainly don't turn heads anymore, it's now Rivian, Lucid, Taycan, Ioniq 5, etc that are the talking points in the fancy grocery store parking lots.
What matters isn't the specific brand or even what they're selling, it's that it's The Cool New Thing.
The tech bro demo in SF loves high tech electrical stuff, and Lucid, Rivian, Taycan, etc. are, COOL and NEW and align to their political and social sensibilities, while also allowing them to flex the conspicuous consumption and signaling.
Mercedes is not new and does not align to obvious socio-political ideals outside of $$$$.
This is also mid-level bling in the grand scheme; the big money is still driving Lambos
I think that view might be some of the same generational (and cultural) mindset misunderstanding.
Fixations about cars (literally, or as a proxy for income), or about "our people", or "good families", are largely disappearing in the cohort of people who are starting careers and families today.
This trend started 60 years ago in the US, and is finally fully mainstream today, even if some parents are still holding on to the past (and if some communities are slower than others). But thank goodness for the progress, at least!
...
But the super-out of touch part of "new Mercedes" is that, even among the status/materially-motivated members of younger generations, a new car, and certainly a new Mercedes, ain't it.
"We want people who want a new Chevy! .. I mean, a new Lincoln! Cadillac? Camaro? Lotus? Mercedes? BMW TT? Prius?! Tesla?? Rivian??? Oh Jeez stop making it so difficult for me to sign up you kids to make me richer already!"
> This trend started 60 years ago in the US, and is finally fully mainstream today,
I assure you it’s not unique to desis in the US.
> even if some parents are still holding on to the past (and if some communities are slower than others). But thank goodness for the progress, at least!
It’s sad how many desis confuse “being more like white people” with “progress.”
Sure, I agree that it's not unique to the US. And I'm not trying to suggest that US/Anglo culture is superior in any way.
But I would suggest that children living their parents' lives, or for their parents' approval, is a recipe for deep dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and lost opportunities for many many people.
Some communities impose their "traditional" (usually hierarchical and patriarchal) expectations on the next generation more strongly than others.
And I would characterize moving away from those kinds of traditional expectations, as progress toward a more (difficult, but) chosen and intentional life. And I would call that a good thing.
> And I'm not trying to suggest that US/Anglo culture is superior in any way.
But that’s your ultimate point.
> But I would suggest that children living their parents' lives, or for their parents' approval, is a recipe for deep dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and lost opportunities for many many people. Some communities impose their "traditional" (usually hierarchical and patriarchal) expectations on the next generation more strongly than others.
In desi culture, it’s very important that children follow the right track, which their parents understand, instead of their own impulses. This cultural disposition is conducive to success—desi children are far more successful in American society than American children from similar economic backgrounds.
It’s also a recipe for contentment. You assert that living for what parents wants makes kids unhappy, but it seems to me that it’s American kids, who grow up being told to “follow their bliss,” who end up unhappy when their silly and unrealistic dreams fail to materialize. If you look at the statistics, from suicides to drug overdoses to cratering family formation, the western approach isn’t going that well.
> And I would characterize moving away from those kinds of traditional expectations, as progress toward a more (difficult, but) chosen and intentional life.
Individual “choice” is a distinctly western fixation. Worshiping the impulsiveness of youth over the judgment and experience of elders is a western fixation. It’s sad that so many desis conflate “being more westernized” with “progress.”
Financing is so readily available, that so long as you have stable employment, I think it is possible to procure most "luxury" cars, regardless of income. Whatever status symbol it may have conveyed as to wealth has been greatly diminished without going for the extreme upper end.
Spoken as someone who hates the necessity of owning a car. To me, it is a mode of transportation and that's it.
This is a false assumption, because some people definitely are. What is the real point of your statement? That you are not interested in opinions of such people?
Sure. You shouldn't care about the opinion of anyone who cares what car you drive, because they are, as made clear by that opinion, entirely superficial thinkers.
There's a comment higher from here that expensive car is a good proxy signal of wealth. Preferring wealthy people may feel unjust and even obnoxious, but it is definitely not superficial thinking. I personally would too steer clear (pun intended) of people like that, but just discounting them looks like the same behavior, isn't it?
At least where I live, what car you drive has mostly come decorrelated with wealth. Obviously at the extremes there’s still a relation (the guy with the beat-up 1990 civic is probably not rich, the girl with the $120k AMG wagon is), but is a new Tesla 3 driver richer than the person with a 2005 Subaru Outback? Who knows!
You might be thinking of counter-signalling on one hand. On the other hand there are just different groups of social status as well. To one group, a mercedes might be very impressive, to another it might be your time spent overseas, even if you all make the same money.
I think the reason cars might not be a reliable status symbol anymore is debt. If someons is in my socia-economic group but driving a very expensive car, it signals to me that they loaned the money so that they could have the status symbol.
Counter-signalling partly explains why pure status symbols are not among Gen Z. Taste, or aesthetic sensibility, is also an explanation. An expensive watch, such as a Patek Philippe, is still status since it's durable – to be passed on. A Mercedes? Not so much.
I also agree on your last point. Most young people today are unable to afford a home, or even pay off college debt. Wealth distribution is increasingly fat-tailed.
How is a Tesla an 'environmentalist symbol' when it has a 500kg battery with lithium mined from the global south and shipped around the world in the supply chain to add value?